The group, consisting of the current authors, located at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute in Elkins Park, received the grant; the current article and several other articles in this supplement are part of the outcomes of the work performed to date. In this project, we worked toward the goal of an RTT by developing and testing a standard method for characterizing the important components

(essential and other active ingredients) of rehabilitation treatments. It is true that after more than 50 years of rehabilitation research we lack a “grand unified theory of rehabilitation.”18(p203) However, there is groundwork to inform the development of a theory-driven classification system for rehabilitation treatments. More than 20 years ago, Bickman described Carfilzomib mw a “program theory” as “the construction of a plausible and sensible model of how

a program is supposed to work.”22(p5) Theorists and methodologists Galunisertib datasheet in the program evaluation field have argued for many years that program evaluation should be “theory driven,” that is, evaluation questions, measurement and design, analysis, and interpretation should be guided by some explicit conceptualization of the causal process through which the intervention(s) offered is expected to have effects on client/patient attributes.23 A similar emphasis on the importance of theory of in research on interventions has also emerged in the medical rehabilitation literature.3, 18, 24, 25 and 26 For instance, Keith and Lipsey stated that the core of a treatment theory consists of “…some set of propositions

that describe what goes on during the transformation of input into output, that is, the actual nature of the process that transforms received therapy into improved health.”27(p51) Rehabilitation specialists have begun to offer elements for a theory of rehabilitation, differentiating aspects of intervention structure and process that may be used to characterize treatments.27, 28, 29 and 30 In an influential discussion of “treatment strength in rehabilitation,” Keith11 distinguished several important dimensions by which treatment strength must be measured (also see Cordray,31 Warren,32 and colleagues). These include, among others, purity (fidelity to an intended protocol), specificity (degree of tailoring to patient characteristics), and intensity variables, such as dose, timing, and sequencing; all of these are important characteristics to be considered in the creation of a theory-driven treatment taxonomy. Quantification of the “dose” of treatment that patients and clients receive is being discussed14, 33 and 34; however, most empirical work still uses a simple count of hours of “treatment.